Fishery co-management; a sustainable way to develop fisheries?
A multi-disciplinary assessment of the fisheries in Lake Vättern, Sweden.
By: Audrey van Mastrigt S1773402
Groningen, July 2013
Preface
The internship is in context with the specialization Science, Business & Policy and the master Marine Biology at the University of Groningen. The internship was conducted at the Swedish University for Agricultural Sciences (SLU) Department for Aquatic Resources in collaboration with the EU GAP2 project. The internship took place over a period of 26 weeks from 10 January till 5 July and was supervised by Alfred Sandström (SLU), Franke van der Molen (University of Groningen), and Britas Klemens Eriksson (University of Groningen).
Disclaimer
This report has been produced in the framework of an educational program at the University of Groningen, Netherlands, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Science Business and Policy (SBP) Curriculum. No rights may be claimed based on this report, other than described in the formal internship contract. Citations are only possible with explicit reference to the status of the report as a student internship product.
Acknowledgement
I would like to take this opportunity and express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Alfred Sandström at the Department for Aquatic Resources, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, whom has guided me through the project from start to finish in Sweden. I would also like to thank my other supervisors Franke van der Molen and Britas Klemens Eriksson at the University of Groningen, your input, advice and encouragement have helped the project come to a good end product. The work was in part financed through support from the European Union’s Seventh Framework through the Science and Society Programme project number 217639: Bridging the knowledge Gap between Fishermen and Science (GAP2). This work does not reflect the Commission’s views and in no way anticipates its future policy in this area.
I would also like to show my appreciation to all of the staff at SLU department for Aquatic Resources for hosting me and for your kindness, which made me feel at home during my stay.
Furthermore, I would like to thank the interviewees and the members of the Jönköping County Administrative board in particular, Beatrice Alenius, Måns Lindell and Michael Bergström for providing me with important information that was needed for the project to proceed.
Finally, I want to thank my friends and family for their support and encouraging words at times when I needed it most.
Summary
Mismanagement of fisheries is one of the main reasons for the critical situation fisheries face today.
Therefore, there is a demand for new management strategies that can help to develop sustainable fisheries. One of these new upcoming governance approaches in fisheries is co-management. Co- management is a governance arrangement where resource users are involved in the decision making process. It aims to develop sustainable fisheries by integrating the ecology of the fishery system with the social and economic aspects associated with the fisheries. This is something that centralized ‘top-down’ management forms of governance have often failed to address. This study aims to assess whether co-management indeed does lead to more sustainable fisheries using Lake Vättern as its case study.
Lake Vättern is a unique, deep, oligotrophic lake situated in southern Sweden with a long tradition of both household and commercial fisheries. The fish catch statistics have shown a gradually declining trend since the 1970’s. In the early 21st century, the commercially important Arctic char and whitefish reached alarmingly low levels due to over exploitation. As a consequence of these declining catches and poor stock statuses, an entire suite of new fisheries regulations was implemented. During this time period a co-management group was also founded by the Lake Vättern Water Society to bring stakeholders together and resolve ongoing conflicts. The new fisheries regulations have been considered successful, but an unanticipated problem arose. The fish populations have shown signs of recovering in Lake Vättern and are currently in better conditions, but the new regulations on commercial fisheries prevents the fishermen from exploiting some of the stocks. Due to the stringent fishing regulations and the high profit made off of crayfish, the fisheries have become mostly dependent on the exploitation of signal crayfish.
The co-management group has been a relatively successful arrangement as it is one of the three pilot projects that continued to exist after the trial period, from the six that were initiated. Clearly defined boundaries, a variety of stakeholders, a skilled chairman, a long-term vision and good communication about goals and means are characteristics that mark the success of the co- management arrangement. The sustainability of the fisheries in Lake Vättern was assessed using an interdisciplinary rapid appraisal technique (RAPFISH) analyzing the time period 1994-2012.
Results from the RAPFISH show that the sustainability score of the commercial fishery in Lake Vättern has improved since the onset of the new regulations and the formation of the co- management group in 2004. The sustainability score mostly improved for the ecological and social aspects concerning the fishery. No apparent trends for economic and/or technological attributes were shown within this time frame. From the analysis it can be concluded that the co-management group mostly contributed to an enhanced social sustainability and possibly indirectly influenced the ecological sustainability. The positive trend in the ecological sustainability is best explained by the implementation of the new fishery regulations.
The future of Lake Vättern shows an increase in exploitation from recreational fishermen, a possible decrease in the crayfish population and the potential to exploit a larger variety of commercial fish species. My suggestion for the fishery in Lake Vättern to continue in a sustainable manner is to improve the economic environment of the fishery whilst conserving the fish stocks and maintaining a positive social environment. This can possibly be achieved by implementing methods that increase the profitability from the commercial fish species.
Table of Contents
Preface _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 Acknowledgement _______________________________________________________________________________ 3 Summary __________________________________________________________________________________________ 4 1 Introduction ____________________________________________________________________________________ 9
1.1 Incentives for project ______________________________________________________________________________ 9 1.2 Frame ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 10 1.4 Central Question ___________________________________________________________________________________ 11 1.5 Aim and end product ______________________________________________________________________________ 11 1.6 Reading guide ______________________________________________________________________________________ 12 2 Background ____________________________________________________________________________________ 13
2.1 Lake Vättern ________________________________________________________________________________________ 13 2.2 Type of Fisheries in Lake Vättern _______________________________________________________________ 14 Commercial fishing ___________________________________________________________________________________ 14 Signal crayfish fishing ________________________________________________________________________________ 15 Recreational fishing___________________________________________________________________________________ 15 2.3 Fisheries governance _____________________________________________________________________________ 16 3 Fishery co-management and user participation _________________________________________ 19
3.1 What is co-management? _________________________________________________________________________ 19 3.1.1 Success of co-management_____________________________________________________________________ 20 3.1.2 Limitations of Co-management ________________________________________________________________ 21 3.1.4 Property rights within co-management ______________________________________________________ 21 3.2 Co-management group Lake Vättern ___________________________________________________________ 22 3.2.1 Activity of the co-management group _________________________________________________________ 24 3.2.2 Functioning of the co-management group ____________________________________________________ 25 3.2.2 Facilitating participatory research ____________________________________________________________ 27 4 Assessment ____________________________________________________________________________________ 29
4.1 Sustainability in fisheries ________________________________________________________________________ 29 4.2 RAPFISH Method ___________________________________________________________________________________ 30 4. 3 Scope ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 31 4.4 Assessment criteria _______________________________________________________________________________ 31 5 RAPFISH results and outcomes _____________________________________________________________ 35
5.1 Commercial fish fisheries ________________________________________________________________________ 35 5.2 Crayfish fisheries __________________________________________________________________________________ 37 5.3 Recreational fisheries_____________________________________________________________________________ 39 5.4 Lake Vättern in a global context _________________________________________________________________ 39 5.5Discussion ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 41 5.5.1 Ecological sustainability _______________________________________________________________________ 41 5.5.2 Economic sustainability ________________________________________________________________________ 42
5.5.3 Social sustainability ____________________________________________________________________________ 43 5.5.4Technological sustainability ____________________________________________________________________ 45 6 Policy interventions to improve local sustainability ____________________________________ 46
6.1 Improving the economy of Lake Vättern’s fishery ____________________________________________ 46 6.1.1 Strengthening the property rights system ____________________________________________________ 46 6.1.2 After sales processing __________________________________________________________________________ 47 6.2 Improving the social status of the fishery in Vättern ________________________________________ 48 6.2.1 Compliance of fishermen through strengthening of property rights _______________________ 48 6.2.2 Increasing knowledge __________________________________________________________________________ 48 6.3 Conserving the fish stocks sustainably _________________________________________________________ 49 6.3.1 Implication of targeting more fish species ____________________________________________________ 49 6.3.2 Better stock assessment through reporting of recreational fish catches ___________________ 49 6. 4 Improving the technical sustainability of Vättern’s fishery ________________________________ 50 6.4.1 After sales processing __________________________________________________________________________ 50 6.4.2 Selective fishing _________________________________________________________________________________ 50
7 Conclusion and Advice 52
References________________________________________________________________________________________ 55 Appendix _________________________________________________________________________________________ 60
Abbreviations
CAB: County Administrative Board CFP: Common Fisheries Policy CPUE: Catch per unit of effort
EMFF: European Marine and Fisheries Fund FIFG: Financial Instrument of Fishery Guidance LVWCS: Lake Vättern Water Conservation Society SBF: Swedish board of fisheries
SLU: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
SwAM: Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management VVF: Vätternvårdsförbundet
1 Introduction
1.1 Incentives for project
The commercial fishery stocks in the European Union are in critical condition. There is a general decline in the quantities of mature fish since the 1970’s, which corresponds with an increased abundance of fish taken annually (Commission of the European Communities 2001). Fish stocks are heavily exploited and if the fisheries will continue in the same manner fish stocks will face overexploitation or even depletion. This is also the case for Swedish fisheries. Both coastal and inland fisheries have experienced high mortality rates and declines in commercial fish stock populations. On a global scale inland fisheries have received little attention in the ongoing discussion of overexploitation of aquatic resources. However, harvest from inland fisheries has shown increasing trends in both developed as well as developing countries (Allan, et al. 2005).
Some inland fisheries have show to trends where commercial fishing becomes increasingly economically less important, which causes them to divert away from commercial fishing and towards increased recreational fishing. Often recreational fishing is not well documented even though they contribute significantly to the total inland harvest (Allan, et al. 2005).
There have been many attempts to control these fisheries. However, few management schemes have been successful in managing the fisheries in sustainable way. The management strategies that were chosen often result in conflict and heavy discussions. The central ‘top-down’ management system is strongly criticized. In the past decade, there has been a shift in policy and objectives of fishery management from addressing only short-term interests such as maximizing annual catches and employment, to addressing both long and short-term interests such as long-term welfare and sustaining ecosystems (Pomeroy 2001). Thus, there is a trend where authority is transferred from fishery administration to user groups.
The fisheries in Lake Vättern can also relate to these trends of declining fish stocks and management decisions leading to increased conflict and discussions. The commercial catch of Arctic char and whitefish has been in decline since the 1970’s. The combined catches of these two species went from 200-210 tons annually to 5-10 tons annually (Official catch statistics from Swedish Board of fisheries). As the commercial fish catch continues to decrease the recreational fish catch has shown to exceed that of the commercial fishery (Vätternvårdsförbundet 2012). Due to the decreasing abundance in catch of commercially important fish species while catch effort continued to increase, stringent regulations were enforced to remediate the fish stocks. Regulations were implemented for both the commercial fisheries as well as recreational fishers. The drastic changes led to a decline in traditional fisheries targeting whitefish and other commercially important fish species. This was also strongly mediated by the increased importance of the crayfish fisheries. The conflict that arose during the implementation and enforcement of these strict fishery regulations led to the formation of a co-management group in 2004/2005 founded by the Lake Vättern Water Society. This group aims to bring different stakeholders together to discuss and formulate advice on the management of Lake Vättern. This form of management uses a ‘bottom-up’ approach, allowing resource users to participate in the formulation of governance.
Ideally a collaborative management structure is preferred over centralized management, as it allows for increased transparency, a wider source of knowledge can be attained, regulations are more rational, conflict is reduced, regulations are more legitimate and there is compliance from the resource users (Symes 2006, Abdullah et al. 1998, Carlsson and Berkes 2005). Though co- management seems an ideal form of fishery management, it is also very complex and the level of involvement of stakeholders is dependent on the state of the situation. The Lake Vättern co- management group consists of a wide range of fisheries stakeholders from various organizations;
resource users (commercial, recreational, subsistence, water-owners), national, regional and local authorities, environmental organizations and researchers. This project will aim to assess whether eight years of implementation of a co-management group, to regulate the fishery, has led to a more sustainable fishery in Lake Vättern.
1.2 Frame
The internship is in context with the specialization field Science, Business & Policy and the master Marine Biology at the University of Groningen. The goal of the internship is to integrate aspects of policy and management with scientific knowledge. This project had a more scientific approach therefore integrating 75% scientific aspects and 25% policy and management aspects. The final product will be an advice report. As part of the internship the intern works toward an end product, which can be implemented. The report will anticipate on the possibility of the implementation of the results or advice given. The internship took place over a period of 24 weeks from 10 January till 1 July and was supervised by Aflred Sandström, Franke van der Molen, and Britas Klemens Eriksson (Table 1).
Table 1. List of supervisors
1.4 Central Question
Has a co-management form of governance led to more sustainable fisheries in Lake Vättern?
Sub Questions:
1. How sustainable is the commercial fishery ecologically, socially, economically and technologically?
2. How does the fishery on crayfish and the recreational fishery compare to that of the commercial fishery in Lake Vättern?
3. How has co-management contributed to the sustainability of the fisheries in the lake?
4. What elements are needed for a successful co-management arrangement?
5. What can the co-management group do to improve the sustainability of the fishery?
1.5 Aim and end product
The aim of this project is to evaluate the sustainability of fishery co-management in Lake Vättern using an interdisciplinary approach. The co-management arrangement will be assessed on the economic, social and ecological development of the fishery in Lake Vättern and whether this has led to sustainable fisheries.
The evaluation will assess whether the fishery in Lake Vättern has become more sustainable within the time period starting from 1994 till now. In this time period several changes in fishery governance have been made and the co-management group was formed. Using this assessment an advice/suggestions can be given on whether the co-management needs to improve on certain attributes that concern the development of fisheries and how the results can be used in developing more sustainable fisheries in the future.
Name Institute Function Role in supervision
Alfred Sandström SLU Institute of Aquatic
Resources/ GAP2 Case study
leader/
Scientist
Daily supervision
Britas Klemens
Eriksson University of Groningen department of Marine Benthic Ecology and Evolution
Scientist and
teacher Science teacher
Franke van der
Molen University of Groningen,
Professional Training ‘Science+
Business & Policy’
Teacher SBP teacher
1.6 Reading guide
To come to a complete assessment of the fishery in Lake Vättern and the co-management group, the report is comprised of both a qualitative analysis as well as a quantitative analysis. It starts with a general description of the case study, and then follows into the analysis of the co-management group and the fisheries of Lake Vättern. Finally, both analyses are integrated resulting in a critically formulated conclusion and a fitting advice. The advice will be directed at the Lake Vättern co- management group, but can also be used in a more general sense for other case studies that may want to initiate a co-management arrangement.
The following Chapter starts by giving a background on Lake Vättern, as the study area for this report. It describes the ecological structure of the lake and then goes on to describe the three different fisheries that were distinguished for this project which are as follow: commercial fish fishery, crayfish fishery and the recreational fishery. Finally, it describes the governance of Lake Vättern, which has been important for the development of the fishery to what it is today.
Chapter three is part of the qualitative assessment of the co-management arrangement. The chapter starts by describing what co-management is and places the co-management arrangement of Lake Vättern into context. After describing co-management in a more general sense, it goes on to describing the Lake Vättern co-management arrangement, and ends with a short analysis of the functioning of the co-management group over the past eight years of activity.
Chapter four is the start of the quantitative analysis of the fisheries in Lake Vättern. This chapter more thoroughly describes the method that was used to measure the sustainability of the fishery in Lake Vättern between 1994 and 2012.
The results from the RAPFISH analysis described in chapter four are shown in chapter five. This is followed by a discussion of the results, which will identify links with the qualitative analysis of the institutional organization.
Chapter six discusses the possible interventions or improvements that the co-management group can help facilitate, to allow for a more sustainable fishery in Lake Vättern. It primarily focuses on methods that aim to improve the sustainability in both the ecological, economic, social and technological dimension of the fishery, by increasing the value of the commercial fish species in Lake Vättern.
Finally, Chapter 7 will summarize the main conclusions that were drawn from this assessment and state the advice that followed from the assessment of the fisheries in Lake Vättern. The advice answers the central question, whether co-management has led to a more sustainable fishery in Lake Vättern. Then general conclusions are made about what factors are crucial for a successful co- management arrangement. Finally, an advice is given for the management of Lake Vättern, on how it can improve the sustainability of its fisheries.
2 Background
The project is based on assessing fishery co-management in Lake Vättern, Sweden. The following chapter will set the scene and describe the area in which the fisheries operate, the governance associated with the fishery and the different types of fisheries that are active on the lake and that were included in the analysis in this report.
2.1 Lake Vättern
Lake Vättern is situated in southern Sweden. It is Sweden’s second largest lake and the 6th largest lake in Europe, as it stretches over a distance of 135 km from south to north (Table 2). It is a deep oligotrophic lake (Figure 1) that harbors 35 different fish species. The commercially important species that are found in Lake Vättern are mainly the fish species Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus alpinus), burbot (Lota lota), perch (Perca fluviatilis), pike (Esox Lucius), salmon (Salmo salar), trout (Salmo trutta), vendace (Coregonus albula), whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus) and most recently the crustacean, signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) (Setzer 2012). The annual landings of the commercially important species have decreased in size dramatically with catches peaking between 200-290 tons in the 1960’s to 70-100 tons in the 20th and 21st century, of which the majority of the catch comprise of signal crayfish, while whitefish catches have decreased from an average of 120 tons in the 1960’s to an average of 7 tons in the past decade (Official data from the Swedish Board of Fisheries). The number of fishermen on Lake Vättern shows a similarly declining trend. At the end of the 1940’s there were approximately 100 commercial fisherman and 400 part-time fishermen, this had already decreased to 40 commercial fishermen and 100 part-time fishermen in the 1970’s. As of today the part time fishermen have disappeared completely, as a result of the changing fishery legislation in 1994 stating that all fishermen were obliged to have a license, and only 21 fishermen remained active on the lake today (Setzer 2012).
Table 2 A summary of the characteristics of Lake Vättern (Vätternvårdsförbundet 2012, Setzer 2012)
Maximum length 135 km
Maximum width 31 km
Average width 13.7 km
Coast line 516 km
Area 1912 km2
Maximum depth 126 m
Mean depth 41 m
Volume 74 km3
Catchment area 6360 km2
Yearly Precipitation 500 mm/year
Yearly Evaporation 435 mm/year
Turnover time 60 years
Maximum visibility 17.7 m
Coordinates 58 24 ‘N 14 36 ‘E
Primary outflow Motala ström that flows into the Baltic sea
2.2 Type of Fisheries in Lake Vättern
There are three categories of fishermen defined by law in Lake Vättern: recreational fishermen, professional fishermen and fishing rights owners. For this project the focus was mainly on the commercial fishery, which we have split into commercial fishing for fish and commercial fishing for crayfish, and recreational fishing. The following forms of fishing in Lake Vättern will be described below.
Commercial fishing
Professional fishermen are fishermen that fish with a commercial fishing license (Vätternsvårdsförbundet 2013). The commercial fishery in Lake Vättern is a small-scale fishery, which currently consists of 21 licensed fishermen. The fishermen fish on small fishing boats of less than eight meters in length and fish with passive gear mainly gill-nets and cages (for fishing on crayfish). Commercial fishery is a fulltime job for all of the fishermen and comprises of most if not all the family income. Initially, the fishery was primarily a multi-species fishery of which Arctic char and whitefish were one of the main targeted species. Since 1994, statistics have shown a decline in the catch of all commercial species and an increase in catch per unit of effort (CPUE). Since, the introduction of signal crayfish and changes in the fishery legislation, the fishery has taken on the character of a single species based fishery focusing primarily on the catch of signal crayfish in the
Figure 1. Maps of Lake Vättern with on the left a map showing the county (red) and municipality (green) boundaries and on the Right a map showing the bathymetry (different depths) of the lake (Vätternvårdsförbundet, 2013; Anders)
past decade (Figure 2). Recently signal crayfish catch statistics have also shown declining catches possibly reflecting that the stock is being overexploited.
Signal crayfish fishing
The profit made from the commercial fishery consists of 90% from signal crayfish. Signal crayfish (Pasifastacus leniusculus) from North America were introduced in Lake Vättern in 1969. Since then, the population has grown intensively and the supply of signal crayfish is very high. The signal crayfish cover an area of about 20% of the lake surface and the stock is estimated to be 3000 tons (Länsstyrelsen 2005). From 1999 and onwards, the commercial fishery on crayfish increased markedly. Signal crayfish is both an important species for the fishermen as well as an attraction that draws tourists and recreational fishermen to the lake. Recreational fishermen are only allowed to fish on crayfish five weekends of the year in the period that starts from the second Friday in August till the second Sunday in September (Vätternvårdsförbundet 2013). The increased intensity of fishing on crayfish has resulted in conflicts between recreational fishermen and commercial fishermen.
Recreational fishing
Recreational fishery has become increasingly important in Lake Vättern. According to the Swedish law, recreational fishery consists of tourists, anglers or sport fishermen and subsistence fishermen (Vätternvårdsförbundet 2013). Targeted fish species for recreational fisheries are mainly Arctic
0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0 80,0 100,0 120,0 140,0 160,0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
catch in ton species-1year-1
Landing year
Arctic Char burbot perch Pike salmon
Trout Vendace whitefish signal crayfish
Figure 2. Graph showing the total catch of each commercially important species in ton for each year between 1994 and 2012.
char, trout and salmon. Various methods of fishing are used by anglers of which trolling, gill nets and ‘utterfisker1’, are the main methods used. Up until 1994 it was the task of the county administrative board to collect data on recreational fishery and thus annual catches were documented. In 1994 the law changed and the Board of Fisheries became responsible for monitoring commercial and recreational fisheries, and thus catch statistics were document on a national level. Since then, a few interview surveys have been done on the recreational fishery in Lake Vättern by the county administrative board in 2000, 2003 and 2010, to estimate the catch trends in recreational fishery (Vätternvårdsförbundet 2012).
The total catch from the recreational fisheries has exceeded the catch of the commercial fisheries in the past decade. In 2000 the estimated total recreational fish catch was 92 tons, while commercial fish catch was an estimated 77 tons. Recreational fishing accounted for 54% of the total catch and commercial fishery for 40 %. While in 1993, the recreational catch comprised of 40% of the total catch in Lake Vättern, thus showing a clear increase over time (Länsstyrelsen 2005). The socio- economic importance of recreational fisheries is estimated through the expense anglers devote to their leisure: licenses, fishing gear (mainly rods and lines) and other supplies (bait, clothes...), transportation, accommodation (European Commission 2006). In France, the amount spent is estimated to reach €200 to 250 per angler, and €350 to 400 in Ireland (European Commission 2006). In Sweden, it was estimated that the total expenditures from recreational fishermen, over the whole country in 2005, was approximately three thousand million (SCB 2005). Thus, recreational fishermen invest a relatively large amount on fishing each year and approximately 138,000 fishermen were active on the great lakes in Sweden (Vätternvårdsförbundet 2010).
2.3 Fisheries governance
Up until 1994 regional offices that belonged to county administration boards, regulated the fishery management. In order to have more coherent fishing rules, the management of fisheries was taken over in 1994 by the national authority. In 1994, the fishing legislation changed such that professional fishing was only allowed if you have obtained an official fishing license. This resulted in the loss of most fishermen that fished as a side occupation (Länsstyrelsen 2005). Then in 2004, stringent regulations were implemented regarding minimum legal size, closed periods, three protected areas and restrictions on bag size and use of equipment (FIFS 2004:37). The minimum size of catch for Arctic char has increased from 36 cm in 1960-1970’s to 50 cm in 2007 (Setzer 2012).
According to Swedish policy, fisheries management needs to meet the criteria of social, economic and ecological sustainability. It states, in this policy, that a balance needs to be found between ecological sustainability, economic efficiency and social equity (SOU 1997/98:2; Piriz, 2004). In 2003 two new policies were adopted regarding marine and fishery strategies. They both called for a new strategy for the marine environment (SOU 2003:72) and fisheries (SOU 2003/04:51). The policies put emphasis on the development of local coastal fisheries, consultation and influence of stakeholders and testing of local collaborative management initiatives (also known as co-
1 Uterfisker when literally translated it means ‘otter fishing’, however this method has nothing to do with fishing on otters. Utterfisker refers to an old fashioned way of trolling. It is a type a gear with which one can
management). The Swedish Board of Fisheries (SBF) was commissioned to take the lead and coordinate pilot projects. The Swedish government decided that pilot projects should be initiated in at least 5 catchment areas, two of which should be inland fisheries. One of these pilot projects was initiated in Lake Vättern and the Lake Vättern Water Conservation Society (LVWCS) founded a co- management group in 2005.
Lake Vättern borders four different counties and eight different municipalities in Sweden (Figure 1). The lake consists of both public open access waters as private waters. Private waters are considered the area of water that extends 300 meters from inland coast and 300 meters from the coast of island that are longer than 100 meters (Fiskeriverket, 2007).
For the recreational fishermen, regulations also became more stringent after 2004; a maximum of two Arctic char can be caught per day and in total only three fish may be caught. The sport fishermen are also restricted on the amount of hooks they are allowed to use and the type of fish gear. A maximum of ten rods per fishing trip is permitted.
3 Fishery co-management and user participation
The following chapter will describe what a co-management form of governance is and describe co- management according to the Lake Vättern case study. In short, fishery co-management is a bottom- up approach to managing fisheries, which evolved due to the criticism the central form of governance, had received in not achieving to manage the resource sustainably. Fishery co-management is in the general sense a power sharing arrangement between governmental authorities and the resources users. Co-management arrangements vary in the degree of legal mandate the stakeholders receive and in Lake Vättern has an advisory function. The Lake Vättern co-management group comprises of a wide variety of participants. The initial years of the co-management group were characterized by creating trust amongst participants and discussion on organization. Whereas, more recently, the discussions have been mostly on fishing and fishery regulations as well as other environmental issues concerning the lake. The Vättern co-management group has been successful, because it involved many stakeholders, had a good chairman and received long-term funding.
3.1 What is co-management?
In some cases, current governance regimes have failed to manage fishery systems sustainably.
Where central forms of management have not succeeded in managing the stocks sustainably, there is a growing need for a new form of governance to allow for the recovery of fish stocks. Central forms of governance have often focused on improving the ecological status of the stocks, while failing to recognize the complex social and economic aspects that are associated with fisheries (Badjeck en Allison 2004). Co-management challenges the incentives of central governance, by dealing with fishing behavior at the local level and integrating the wealth of local ecological knowledge (LEK), by including resource users in the decision making process (Symes 2006). Co- management integrates ecology, economics and society (Pomeroy 2001). It is a form of governance, which has been widely used in managing of common-pool resources in developing countries.
However, in recent years there is also an upcoming trend of user participation in small-scale fisheries in developed countries. Co-management can be characterized into two categories:
Figure 3.Typology of co-management arrangements (Badjeck en Allison 2004)
community-centered co-management and stakeholder-centered co-management (Pomeroy 2001).
Where the latter form of management is usually found in fisheries in developed countries, which is the form that will be discussed further in this paper.
Many different definitions of co-management can be found in literature. The Worldbank refers to co-management as: ‘the sharing of responsibilities, rights and duties between the primary stakeholders, in particular, local communities and the nation state, a decentralized approach to decision making that involves the local users in the decision-making process as equals with the nation-state’. The IUCN (1996) gives another definition and refers to co-management as ‘a partnership in which government agencies, local communities and resource users, non- governmental organizations and other stakeholders negotiate as appropriate to each context, the authority and responsibility for the management of a specific area or set of resources’. Each definition tries to grasp the essence of co-management, which is generally described as a power sharing arrangement between the state and a community of resource users (Carlsson and Berkes 2005).
There is a hierarchy in co-management arrangements, which range from an organization where fishermen are slightly involved in decision making, to an arrangement where fishermen can design, implement and enforce laws. No one co-management arrangement is exactly the same, because the amount of authority given to the resource users is a political decision and arrangements need to be adapted to the region and resource in question (Pomeroy, 2001). The different forms of co-
management and how they vary in degree of power that is given to the fishermen is illustrated (Figure 3). The first form of co- management, is where scientist and fishermen are reduced to providing authorities with information that they will use to form regulations. Communication in this form of co-management is mostly one-way (Jentoft and Mcay 1995). The second form of co-management, is where the resource users, in this case fisherman, have an advisory/consultative role. They can advise the government to implement certain regulations or change regulations, however the power/authority is still solely appointed to the government, which will make all final decisions. Finally, co-management can be where power and decision-making is shared between the government and user groups. A certain amount of responsibility is allocated to the producer organizations. In this form of management, the resource users can directly influence the governance. The co-management arrangement of Lake Vättern fits into the second category where fishermen and scientist have an advisory/consultative role, but can’t directly influence the governance.
3.1.1 Success of co-management
Co-management is in many cases already in place without it formerly being recognized as a co- management arrangement. There are many skeptical viewpoints on co-management and in some ways it might be represented as too idealistic to actually work in practice. However, when it is
Co-management--- a power sharing arrangement between the state and a community of resource users (Carlsson and Berkes
2005).
exercised in the right way, it theoretically can have a number benefits compared to the old- fashioned centralized form of management. In the literature, examples such as projects initiated in Norway, Japan and Denmark have shown success (Nielsen and Vedsmand 1999).
Co-management allocates the responsibility and management at the local level of the resource being used. In this way knowledge about the resource is more directly accessible and decision- making is more direct. Ideally, a co-management structure is preferred over centralized management, because it increases transparency, a wider source of knowledge can be attained, regulations are more rational, conflict is reduced, regulations are more legitimate and there is increased compliance from the resource users (Symes 2006, Abdullah et al. 1998, Carlsson and Berkes 2005). Increased compliance and commitment from the resource users also leads to decreased transaction costs, thus making management more efficient (Symes and Phillipson 1999) 3.1.2 Limitations of Co-management
Though co-management has many benefits to managing a common resource such as fisheries, it is not suitable in every situation. Critics argue that reaching consensus amongst all participants is difficult and in some cases it is replaced by compromise. In such a situation, it has the risk that resource users still act out of self-interest. Pomeroy (2001) also argues that the incentive for individuals and communities to participate in co-management may not always be present. If this is the case, a co-management form of governance will not work.
Co-management is also thought to be a timely process and requires a multi-year effort, which can be very costly (Pomeroy 2001). However, when comparing a ‘top-down’ form of management with a ‘bottom-up’ approach, Hanna (1995) concludes, that even though a central form of governance may be cheaper initially it will have fewer benefits as to where a ‘bottom up’ approach can potentially give lasting returns (Nielsen & Vedsmand 1999). Therefore, co-management may be more costly in the initial phases but once it is properly implemented the costs of regulating the fisheries are reduced.
One other argument against co-management is that involving many different stakeholders, that have a connection to the fish resource, can make the institutional design quite complex. The complexity of the system, in some cases, might be too complex for resource users to understand and thus reduce the legitimacy of the arrangement (Jentoft and Mikalsen 2003). Jentoft and Mikalsen (2003) also argue that there is a discrepancy between the legal mandate and the responsibility the fishermen have for the effects of management. In the case of the Norwegian fishery, the fishermen receive quite a lot of power to influence the regulations, however they have no formal responsibility for the consequences of these decisions.
3.1.4 Property rights within co-management
Property rights play a central role when it comes to managing fisheries (Pomeroy 2001). Applying property rights as a management instrument gives the individual or community of resource users both the cost and benefits of the undertaken actions and therefore increases the incentive to conserve the fish stocks (Pomeroy 2001). Property rights gives the resource users the power to, use or manage the resource, sell it or grant it and take yield as harvest or rent it out (Badjeck en Allison 2004). It can be classified in four different categories depending on the level of access: open access,
state property, common property and private property (Berkes and Farvar 1989). In reality, however, property rights are more complex and may not exist exactly within these definitions.
Applying property rights can have several inputs and outputs of which four are commonly mentioned: exclusivity, duration, security and transferability. The application of property rights is often imbedded in co-management regimes as co-management arrangements create a platform, which allows for strengthening of already existing property rights whether formal or informal.
Ways in which co-management can contribute to strengthening property rights and improving fishery management are setting of individual quotas or community quotas, specifying territorial user rights for fishing (TURFS), or fishing input rights (Shotton 2000).
Though strengthening property rights might seem like a good objective for fishery co-management, new right-based management regimes need to have overall support and legitimacy of the stakeholders. It should iteratively be built in within context and consultation, trust and institutional capacity building and they must remain sufficiently flexible to respond to future changes (Badjeck en Allison 2004).
Forms of property rights do exist in the commercial fishery of Lake Vättern as the professional fishermen are required to have a license. The fisher license promotes exclusivity by restricting the number of fishermen on the lake and limiting the fishermen on the type and amount of gear that they can use. Secondly, the area on the lake up to 300 meter from shore and 100 meters around an island is considered private waters. Restrictions on type of gear used still exist on the private waters, but no limit exists on the amount of gear that can be used. Some of the fishermen also own private waters and usually fish in these areas when there are many recreational fishermen out on the common waters in the summer (Johansson 2013, Sandström 2013). The areas of the lake outside of the private waters are considered open access areas, excluding the three protected areas that were implemented in 2004, where all types of fishing are restricted.
3.2 Co-management group Lake Vättern
After the implementation of new fishery policies in 2004 the Swedish Board of Fisheries (SBF), now known as the Swedish Agency of Marine and Water Management (SwAM), was commissioned to take the lead and coordinate collaborative management initiatives. The SBF initiated 6 pilot projects, two of which were inland fisheries including Lake Vättern. In 2005, the Lake Vättern Water Conservation Society (LVWCS) founded the Lake Vättern co-management group. The executive committee comprises of SwAM, LVWCS, Insjöfiskarna (commercial freshwater fishermen), Lake Vättern’s Angling and Fish conservation Society (mainly subsistence fishermen), The fishing waters owners society, Sportfiskarna (sportsfishermen), Sveriges Fisketurism Företagare (fishing tourism guides), Kräftriket and Ekonomiska Förening (NGO, supporting crayfish fisheries, particularly its importance to tourism), two out of eight municipalities and two out of four representatives from the county administration boards (Vätternvårdsförbundet 2013). The previous participants and their incentives are later further described (Table 4). The co- management group acts as a forum where issues on fisheries can be addressed by the different stakeholders and in the long run formulate sustainable fishing strategies.
From the moment of initiation, the co-management group has undergone several changes in organizational structure. Organizational issues were a prominent topic during the first two years of the group. The co-management group was initially funded through the Financial Instrument of Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) during the period 2005-2006. In 2007, the group became a formalized part of the LVWCS and then became a working committee comprising of six different groups (Sandström & Norrgård, unpublished). The six working groups that were formed are: Rules and Regulations, Fishing controls, Investigation & Monitoring, Information & Communications, Fishing management in Vättern’s tributaries and the Crayfish Group (Kräftgruppen). Each group will develop guideline materials and propose resolutions, so that a decision can be made jointly within the working committee. The working committee consists of representatives of each working group.
In combination with the group becoming a formalized part of the LVWCS, new funding was received from the European Marine and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). Becoming an EMFF group means that the work from the working group committee should focus on sustaining and monitoring fish as well as focusing on the economic and entrepreneurial aspects of fishing (Lundholm & Crona, unpublished).
In addition to receiving funding from the EMFF, the group received funding from the Seventh Framework Program, when they joined the EU GAP project in 2008. The GAP project enables the group to address participatory research issues (Alfred and Norrgård, unpublished).
The co-management group holds meetings 3 to 4 times annually at different locations around the lake. During the meetings, the topics that are discussed can be very diverse. They do not only focus on fishing and fishery regulations, but also environmental issues, conservation and other uses for exploitation of the lake (to name a few).
Figure 4. Diagram showing the structure of the fishery governance associated with Lake Vättern (adapted from Folkesson, 2010)
3.2.1 Activities of the co-management group
A consensus among all members of the committee has to be reached for a decision to be made. If consensus cannot be reached the issue is either postponed or rejected. Initially, there was a misunderstanding between the participants and the amount of legal mandate that they were given.
The participants expected to be able to formulate new regulations, however the SBF was not able to allow this and meant for the CMI to serve as an advisory council. This might have caused for reduced motivation among the participants, however this obstacle is currently overcome.
Recently, a summary was made from the protocols from minutes of all the meetings that were held by the executive co-management committee between 2005 and 2012. From this analysis, it is possible to deduce what concrete decisions the group has made and how successful they were in terms of acceptance and implementation. This analysis could possibly help identify whether and how the co-management group has contributed to increasing the sustainability of the fishery in Lake Vättern.
Most decisions that were made, by the co-management group, were made in the period after 2007 when the co-management group had become a formalized part of the LVWCS. In the initial years, the co-management group had little effect or impact on the regulations regarding fishery regulations. These initial years were mostly characterized by discussing management and organizational structure, which would be essential for an efficient development of the co-
SWaM
Swedish board of fisheries
SLU Swedish Board
of Agriculture
Four County Adminstrative
Boards
Eight Municipalities
LVWCS
Co-Management group
Commercial
fishermen Recreational
fishermen Sportsfishermen Touring Guides Water rights owners Envionment
Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency
management group in the future. The period from 2005 till 2006 was also important for the participants to get to know each other and to build trust among the participants.
Over the years, many topics were discussed of which fishing rules and statuses of the fish stocks were a recurrent topic throughout all of the years. After 2007, other topics such as environmental issues, research, conflicts with other exploitation interests and habitat restorations were increasingly discussed.
In total, 85 decisions were made out of which 57 led to desirable results, the decisions regarded both changes in fishing rules and organizational issues. A total of nine proposals have been made to the national agency, regarding changes in the fisheries law for inland water. Four of the nine proposals have resulted in revisions of the regulations, three are pending and two have been rejected (Sandström and Norrgård, unpublished). The suggestions that have succeeded concerned rules on crayfish fishing, the number of days a net can soak in the lake without being emptied, and removing a paragraph concerning fishing with gillnets in deeper areas.
As mentioned above, the co-management group joined the EU Gap project in 2008. Joining the GAP project lead to an increased emphasis on collaborations between fishermen and scientists and approaches that help to facilitate participatory research. The outcomes of the GAP project will be further described in chapter 3.2.3.
Finally, economical topics of Lake Vättern are rarely discussed. When economy is a topic during the meetings, it concerns the annual budget for the co-management group or applying for external funding. Receiving long term funding is essential for the co-management group, to continue to exist and a long-term vision is needed for resolving issues. There is an external FLAG committee that focuses on measures that favor the long term economical development of the region that is related to the fishery i.e. through building better docks, manufacturing of fish and marketing (personal communication A. Sandström).
3.2.2 Functioning of the co-management group
Three of the six CMI continued after the trial period was over, of which the co-management group in Lake Vättern was one. Therefore, it can be assumed that they have found a successful and effective formula to manage the fisheries in this way. However, issues still need to be addressed for the long-term sustainability of the co-management group. To identify how the co-management group has functioned over the years, information was collected through the summary of the meeting minutes, interviews with several social scientists that have done prior research on the Lake Vättern CMI and use of prior articles written on Lake Vättern. Several recurrent themes were noticed on the positive and negative development of the co-management group. Overall the observations done on the co-management group do seem to support the literature written on collaborative governance in that it has led to increased legitimacy, compliance and reduced conflict (Pomeroy 2001, Symes 2006)
One of the main recurrent observations and key factors to maintaining this form of governance, was the building of trust (Lundholm and Crona in review). Before the co-management group was formed, there was little trust between the different stakeholders, which lead to increased conflicts
(Lundholm, 2013). Through the co-management group, a platform was created bringing the stakeholders together and allowing them to discuss different issues and try to resolve them. The building of trust did not immediately result but took time. Lundholm (2013) reflected back on the first meeting that she had ‘never been more uncomfortable in her entire life’, because of the tension that was in the room. After several meetings, the stakeholders got to know each other and a sense of trust was created. Now that the different parties had a better understanding of each other, the representatives from the different groups were in a better state to discuss and come to a compromise on how to resolve certain issues.
Another factor, that has been mentioned several times, is the role of the chairman within the co- management group (Lundholm and Crona in review, Sandström and Norrgård unpublished). First off al, the chairman is a politician with no prior knowledge or particular interest in fisheries;
therefore he was seen as an unbiased participant, which the different members could confide in.
Secondly, the chairman was good at mediating and leading the discussion by allowing every person to get an equal say on the matter.
Thirdly, the co-management group has created a platform in which knowledge and information is shared more efficiently between different groups. Before the co-management group was formed, Lake Vättern was in an ‘institutional crisis’, partly because of the uncertainty and differing views on the decline of the Arctic char stock. By sharing knowledge and information between fishermen and scientist, can clarify certain issues and increase the understanding of the resource (Lundholm and Crona in review).
Finally, long term funding is essential to maintain an institution (Pomeroy et al. 2001). The co- management group has received several forms of funding. For this type of governance to be effective a long-term view needs to be implemented. As mentioned before it takes time before this arrangement was fully functioning and trust was built between the stakeholders. Only after that was the group able to discuss other pressing issues on the agenda.
Up until now the positive development of the co-management group has been discussed, however there were also several recurrent concerns which were observed that might have lessened the functioning of the group. One of the key issues mentioned several times is the misunderstanding on the amount of legal mandate that was assigned to the co-management group (Lundholm and Crona in review, Jacobsen et al. 2011). The SWaM cannot delegate exercise of authority regarding e.g.
license requests, conditions for protected areas, minimum catch size etc.; meaning that the SWaM cannot delegate the responsibility of fishery regulations and therefore not delegate this to the co- management group according to Swedish law (Fiskeriverket 2007). Some participants were under the impression that they would be able to directly influence the policies on fishery regulations;
however this was not the case. The SBF, at the time, did not communicate this properly at the onset of the formation of the co-management group. When this was brought to the attention of the group, it decreased the motivation of several participants to continue. Even though this seemed to be a bump in the road, it did not break up the group. Some fishermen also identify that they are happy that someone else is responsible for enforcing the regulations.
Another criticism that the co-management group has received is the high representation of the Swedish authorities (Lundholm and Crona in review; Rova, et al. 2009; Jacobsen et al. 2011). Thus, making the co-management group more bureaucratic then it should be. Some fishermen also voiced this concern; however it doesn’t seem to have had a negative effect on the efficiency of the co- management group. It rather makes the link between stakeholder and government shorter. One fisherman also mentioned that the communication and relationship with the county administrative board is very good.
Lastly, a recurring concern has been that the representatives of the different groups might not voice the views and wills of all the stakeholders (Lundholm 2013). This depends on the level of organization within the different fishery groups, which seem to be quite high around Lake Vättern.
The commercial fishermen also have a committee. Approximately only half of the fishermen are however actually involved with this.
3.2.2 Facilitating participatory research
The co-management group joins the EU GAP project in 2008, which enabled the working group to address participatory research issues. One of the objectives of these tests is to increase ecological knowledge by broadening the source of information. This ultimately may lead to decreases in uncertainty about specific issues and in turn also reduce the conflicts, that might have been raised due to uncertainties. The main project that the GAP2 focuses on is the development of a selective whitefish fishery in Lake Vättern. This topic was chosen during one of the meetings allowing the stakeholders to suggest a topic, which they would be interested in. Two projects were suggested one by the commercial fishermen and the other by the recreational fishermen. In the end the majority voted for the selective whitefish project, which the commercial fishermen had brought forward. A total of 14 fishermen are currently actively participating within the project. The fishermen are positive about the collaboration with scientist and seem not to mind to invest extra time to help out with the project. The main incentive of the fishermen is that they can more easily fish on whitefish in the long run, which will also give them extra income (Carléns 2013, Grönlind, Grönlind and Gustafsson 2013, Johansson 2013). Overall, the collaboration between fishermen and scientists has been positively experienced (Carléns 2013, Grönlind, Grönlind and Gustafsson 2013, Johansson 2013). The fishermen that are involved are interested in learning new things about the resource from scientists and vice versa. The main incentive for fishermen to collaborate is out of self-interest this seems to also be an outcome in a Dutch GAP2 case working on self-sampling of flatfish (Kraan 2013). Thus, for the future of participatory research method topics need to be explored that both stakeholders have an interest in. For example, when trying to involve other stakeholders such as recreational fishermen or fishing rights owners. Involving these stakeholders is also difficult because of the low level of organization with in the groups.
Table 3. Represents the views and incentives of the different participants of the co-management working group.
Stakeholders Interests and Incentives
1. Swedish Agency of Marine and Water Management (SWaM/HaV)
This is the national agency in Sweden that is responsible for foreseeing that common fish resources are managed sustainably. They are also responsible for implementation and regulation of fishery policies. They try to make fishing regulations as coherent as possible.
2. County Administrative Boards (CAB)
Four CABs surround the lake: Örebro, Östergötland, Jönklöping, Västrä Götland. The county administrative boards are responsible for environmental monitoring and supervision of the lake and they act in behalf of the SWaM. Their tasks are conducted in collaboration with Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) and LVWCS.
3. Lake Vättern Society of Water Conservation
Work in collaboration with the (CAB). They are responsible to promote the maintenance of the ecosystem quality of the lake and coordinate monitoring, assessment and scientific data collection.
4. Municipalities surrounding the lake
There are 8 municipalities surrounding the lake (Askersund, Karlsborg, Motala, Vadstena, Ödeshög, Hjo, Habo and Jönköping) their main interest and concerns are on tourism that the lake and its resources bring to the area. Not all 8 municipalities attend the meeting, but one representative to reduce the amount of authorities that join in the meetings.
5. Swedish University for Agricultural Sciences (SLU)
Responsible for research and monitoring of fish stocks in Lake Vätttern. Their main interest is that fish stocks are maintained at a healthy level and that quality research and information is provided.
6. Insjöfiskarna (freshwater fisherman)
This is comprised of 20 licensed commercial fishermen of whom 19 are part of the co-management group. The commercial fishermen mostly have an economic incentive in participating in the co-management group.
7. Lake Vättern’s Angling and Fish Conservation Society
Represents a large group of anglers that come to Lake Vättern for pleasure to fish. They have no commercial incentives but mostly wish to have a good fishing experience on the lake.
8. The Fishing Waters Owners Society Want to make sure the fish stocks within their private waters are conserved.
9. Sportsfiskarna (sport fishermen)
The sport fishermen represent a large group in Sweden.
They mostly fish for the experience and thus like to fish on large fish such as salmon and trout. Many sport fishermen also enjoy fishing on grayling. Their main incentives would be to keep the restocking of salmon and currently be allowed to continue fishing on grayling (communication with sprotsfiskarna representative).
10. Sveriges Fisketurism Företagare (fishery tourism)
To ensure a better balance between commercial fishing and fishing tourism, where authorities put more emphasis on the economic value of natural resources.
It's about economic development and job creation through prudent management of fish stocks (Sveriges Fisketurism Företagare 2013)
